Is tiny Heed the world's smallest cat?

[SSanf]

I don't know if he will be the smallest but he sure is cute.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399766&in_page_id=1770

[WitchJezebel]

Awwww - he's a cutie.

[BlueEyedWolf]

Those Munchkins are so cute. I still have yet to see one IRL. BooHoo! One day i want one.

[_Banbha_]

he's adorable.

I do think there is something sad/wrong about diliberately breeding cats for those stumpy legs.

[LadyAutumnCat]

he's adorable.

I do think there is something sad/wrong about diliberately breeding cats for those stumpy legs.

My thoughts exactly! But, he is cute!

[HetHert]

He's adorable. I don't think there's a problem with breeding a cat with the Munchkin gene. Just because humans have the "Little Person" gene and there are people who reflect that gene in their appearance doesn't mean they don't breed. Its just a mutation in genetics that occurs. Deliberately breeding with that gene just starts a new breed of cat. Cat breeders have been doing it for years. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with them other than having smaller than usual features. I wonder if they get kitty shortness complexes though? That'd be something to think about I suppose.

[Cindlady2]

Ye, I have mixed thoughts about it too. I had a cat that was naturally close to how they are breeding. He just was not 'right' in general. He was real nice and all, just not 'normal'. I know of at least 2 females that even in heat would reject him. I think 'natural selection would not allow the breed to exist. But then breeders have been fighting nature since the beginning.

[Amythest]

I believe that they smallest cat on record right now is an adult cat that only weighs 2 pounds. Lives in Europe not sure exactly where.

[HorseCrow]

Awww, a little cutie pie :)

[Cindlady2]

Figaro (my small cat) weighed about 3 1/2 lbs. most of it was belly! LOL he was cute and very, very laid back but he seemed to have allot of accidents.
I guess my concern is cats developing the types of disorders involved whenever there is inbreeding to make a new breed. And inbreeding is pretty much a given.

[irish_knight]

this kitty eat that little guy for breakfast

[_Banbha_]

This is a very measured and fair article about selective breeding and breeding for deformity that might be of interest.

I still think breeding a living being for novelty is wrong and I would not contribute by paying for one and supporting the breeding. That's my choice. But if a kitten is born as munchkin naturally or is born without eyes, they can have quality life in a loving home without being bred. All cats/kittens are cute and loveable; teeny-tiny ones too, but not esspecially so. :p

As you'll see in the article some of these novelty breeds have other genetic problems besides the obvious.

The Ethics of Breeding for Deformity (http://www.messybeast.com/twisty.htm)

Kangaroo Cats and Squittens Revealed (http://www.messybeast.com/squitten.htm)


Ironically, the controversy surrounding the breed has contributed to its growing popularity. Because of articles in The Wall Street Journal, People Magazine, and other publications, public demand for Munchkins has been great, the waiting lists long, and the supply limited. The sports car of the cat fancy is commanding sports car prices, too, and breeders want to ensure that disreputable people don’t take advantage of the Munchkin’s popularity by using unethical breeding practices.
Link (http://www.thepetprofessor.com/breed_profiles/cats/munchkin.aspx)


Yah, good luck with that. The stuff that goes on behind closed doors or on breeding farms..... _inabox_

[Amythest]

Although yes, there are some sick people out there that have bred cats to look different then other cats. But sometimes in nature itself there are offspring born that have natural deformities. I know this is a cat thread, but think of it this way if we didn't play god with dogs, would we have so many breeds now? People have through the centries bred animals to fit their lifestyles. Some people interbreed types of animals for different reasons, sometimes it is to get a stronger more robust animal, (say in the case of the case of dogs such as the different types of herding dogs, and even in horses to get the shetland ponies, morgans and even miniture draft horses). Though I do not condone breeding for the purpose of creating a breed, one must think is it worth rising the health and well being of an animal to breed for certain types of defects which in turn will cause a breakdown of the genetic pool that we have already established. Personally if I had an animal that was pregnant and there were any defects I would be sure to put the animal humanely down instead of making it suffer throughout its life with pain, discomfort and possible other diseases that they may be prone to.

[_Banbha_]

To me people breeding for a deformity intentionally is wrong. I think it is like a new novelty item. Obviously many people are interested in buying these kittens so they disagree with me. I'm not trying to stop them but I do have strong opinions on the ethics of this. I'm not an extremist against all purebreds. This just seems perverse to me.

Breeding dogs with such mushed up faces and large heads (read: pugs: who are wonderful, super smart dogs) so they have to be delivered by C-section or kill the mom at the times;and have respitory issues is wrong to me. It is a novelty to have a dog with such an extreme features that has everything to do with appearance and nothing with function. Pugs could be bred to appear less extreme, and have more natural nose or snout with less respitory issues; and still be lovable Pugs with that great personality. But they are not. People want that look.

Cattle dogs, hearders, hunting dogs that use scent or sight, ratters, etc. were breed for function.

I agree with you in breeding for strenth and adaptibility and not wanting sick ones to suffer.

I know I have extreme views to some and I don't mean to put anyone off, Munchkins and pugs are wonderful animals in themselves. I just don't see the point in breeding them for pure aesthetic purposes.

[Amythest]

To me people breeding for a deformity intentionally is wrong. I think it is like a new novelty item. Obviously many people are interested in buying these kittens so they disagree with me. I'm not trying to stop them but I do have strong opinions on the ethics of this. I'm not an extremist against all purebreds. This just seems perverse to me.

Breeding dogs with such mushed up faces and large heads (read: pugs: who are wonderful, super smart dogs) so they have to be delivered by C-section or kill the mom at the times;and have respitory issues is wrong to me. It is a novelty to have a dog with such an extreme features that has everything to do with appearance and nothing with function. Pugs could be bred to appear less extreme, and have more natural nose or snout with less respitory issues; and still be lovable Pugs with that great personality. But they are not. People want that look.

Cattle dogs, hearders, hunting dogs that use scent or sight, ratters, etc. were breed for function.

I agree with you in breeding for strenth and adaptibility and not wanting sick ones to suffer.

I know I have extreme views to some and I don't mean to put anyone off, Munchkins and pugs are wonderful animals in themselves. I just don't see the point in breeding them for pure aesthetic purposes.


I totally agree, and with you on the novelty breeding for looks such as the pug, peeks, etc. knowing that they will have problems is wrong, the diversity is already here. The other beef I have about breeding is that once a person has a "PUREBREED" that is all they would like to breed with. But in fact there is no such thing as a Pure Bred dog or cat. They are all a mixture that has come about to make such a look. The Malimutes and huskies have to be bred to a pure wolf every 6 generations in order to keep the looks going and to keep the breed pool open. But what about those mix puppies...? Are they pure breed too, or are they just toss offs? But we must think that if it wasn't for the fact that people started to breed different looking dogs or cats then we wouldn't have the beauty and diversity that we have today. I believe that any form of deformity should be put down, (i.e - twisted feet, and deformed tails or faces, etc.). Oh, well, there is little use in arguing the point because some people are so stubborn and say well I have a (breed name) and if you don't like it tough. Others think that it is good business to sell such extreme animals for major profit because there are those out there that are so sick as to want them. My cat or dog is special because it has no tail *born that way*, or it has shortened legaments *rabbit like cats*, etc. just to say that they have one. There is no way to change everyone's mind, there will always be sick and twisted views on animals, however unfortunate.

[LadyAutumnCat]

All I have to say is that there are literally MILLIONS of healthy dogs and cats in the U.S. dying every year because shelters can't find them homes. These animals might not be "pure bred", but for a fraction of the cost of buying a "pure bred" animal, they offer the same amount of love and affection, while also preventing needless deaths.

I've always wondered what is the difference between a "mutt" and a "pure bred"? The only "official" distinction are AKC papers. That being said, I have two "pure breds" (without any official papers, of course) only because they happened to be wandering the streets abandoned and I happened upon them. The only difference I have found is that as they age, they have exhibited breed specific health issues that I'm sure most people would have dumped them for a long time ago.

I'm not knocking pure breds per se, because they are lovely and do have their place. What I am knocking is excessive and needless breeding for a profit, without giving back to the animal/animal rescue community!

Please consider shelter animals first, they are just as adorable, loving, and precious. You also have the added incentive that in most cases, volunteers have hand raised/reared or known the animals for years and can help you make a perfect match. By adopting you affect not only animals lives, but reaffirm human volunteers hope.....

This is not meant to fuel an argument, it's just my opinion and experience.

ETA: If you MUST have a "pure bred" consider rescue groups that focus on the particular breed you are interested in. The adoption fee is usually higher than a shelter's fee, but much less than a breeder's fee and you have the added bonus of having saved a life!